4 ms·

I believe this is one of the big reasons I chose to go towards trading instead of working in SV. The prop trading companies (and even big finance firms like Gol

by consz 12y ago

I believe this is one of the big reasons I chose to go towards trading instead of working in SV. The prop trading companies (and even big finance firms like Goldman) have far more egalitarian profit-sharing structures than places like e.g. Google or Facebook, and you can really see that employees of those trading firms are a lot more motivated in their work than a programmer at a typical SV firm (even at startups that I've seen).

michaelochurch 12y ago
Trading houses accept that people are mercenary, which means it's socially acceptable to be that way. The result is that it's much harder for these companies (especially prop shops) to take advantage of their workers. VC-funded tech, on the other hand, values effeteness and neoteny. You have to pretend to be a "true believer", and that creates enough actual true believers who'll take jobs with terrible terms, and that kills the market. Consequently, you have people working 80-hour weeks for "equity" that is 0.05% of a 60-person company. It's ridiculous.
- consz 12y ago
  Agreed, the culture is much more open in trading and people are very clear about how much money they are bringing to the table (arguably it is also easier to quantify value added, as well).
rayiner 12y ago
It's one of the things I like about legal practice. No outside shareholders, no non-lawyers in the management chain, and every shareholder labors for a living billing hours. I understand the importance of passive investment to the economy, obviously. As an employee, I just prefer not to work in that framework.
- walshemj 12y ago
  But only the ones at the top get to be partners the support and paralegal staff doing get nothing from the partnership.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 12y ago
    You have a better shot at partnership at even a mega-firm than getting significant equity with a significant vote in a corporation without coming in as an early employee.
    - walshemj 12y ago
      Only lawyers though - no google chefs or similar support staff getting anything. The corrupting nature of share classes with differing level of votes is a separate issue
asdfologist 12y ago
I don't think so. Yes, you do get paid more, but you're expected to put in more hours and forced to work within a much more rigid environment with less transparency. Also, throughout finance firms (even among the more tech-saavy ones), the programmers are ostensibly considered second-class to the portfolio managers, and this is reflected in the pay. So yes, they get paid more, and as a result they may be more a bit more motivated, but there's nothing egalitarian about programmer pay on Wall Street.
- walshemj 12y ago
  I think its more egalitarian than SV if only because if your working in that area your probably take a more realistic view of your value. And what about all that unpaid OT that SV companies expect?
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  you're expected to put in more hours There are some trading houses with really terrible cultures, but there are plenty where people work 9-to-5. Possibly 9-to-7, if a new strategy is being deployed that week. The 12-hour-per-day shops exist, but they're not the norm and they don't get the best people. At least, they don't get good people on the entry level. Top traders will work at them, for a price, but trading companies promote from within a lot more than tech, so that actually hurts them. within a much more rigid environment with less transparency. That's regulatory. It's true that it'd be hard for a trading firm to pull off a Valve-like structure, but most tech companies have the same barriers and permissions systems (but for arbitrary and stupid reasons). If you work for a closed-allocation tech company, there's no good reason not to trade up to a financial job with 50-100+ percent more pay and no fundamental change in work quality. Financial firms also value loyalty more and promote from within. Tech companies almost never promote from within, because they have that emasculated social-climbing mentality of always feeling the need for "better" people. Traders, culturally, have more of humility. "We're regular guys making money doing something hard." (There are some prima donna star traders who are exceptions, but they tend to fall hard and when they do, they're viciously attacked-- as they should be.) Also, throughout finance firms (even among the more tech-saavy ones), the programmers are ostensibly considered second-class to the portfolio managers, and this is reflected in the pay. If you're savvy at all, you'll establish yourself as a quant-who-codes, not a pure programmer. I don't think the Valley is different, in this regard. Non-managing programmers are, if anything, third-class citizens compared to venture capitalists, executives, and the people who are well-connected enough to be made founders. Trust me. Outside of the few open-allocation tech companies (e.g. Valve, Github) the financial world's deal is across-the-board superior. It's harder to get into, though.

by consz 12y ago

michaelochurch 12y ago

Trading houses accept that people are mercenary, which means it's socially acceptable to be that way. The result is that it's much harder for these companies (especially prop shops) to take advantage of their workers. VC-funded tech, on the other hand, values effeteness and neoteny. You have to pretend to be a "true believer", and that creates enough actual true believers who'll take jobs with terrible terms, and that kills the market. Consequently, you have people working 80-hour weeks for "equity" that is 0.05% of a 60-person company. It's ridiculous.

consz 12y ago
Agreed, the culture is much more open in trading and people are very clear about how much money they are bringing to the table (arguably it is also easier to quantify value added, as well).

rayiner 12y ago

It's one of the things I like about legal practice. No outside shareholders, no non-lawyers in the management chain, and every shareholder labors for a living billing hours. I understand the importance of passive investment to the economy, obviously. As an employee, I just prefer not to work in that framework.

walshemj 12y ago
But only the ones at the top get to be partners the support and paralegal staff doing get nothing from the partnership.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 12y ago
  You have a better shot at partnership at even a mega-firm than getting significant equity with a significant vote in a corporation without coming in as an early employee.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    Only lawyers though - no google chefs or similar support staff getting anything. The corrupting nature of share classes with differing level of votes is a separate issue

asdfologist 12y ago

I don't think so. Yes, you do get paid more, but you're expected to put in more hours and forced to work within a much more rigid environment with less transparency. Also, throughout finance firms (even among the more tech-saavy ones), the programmers are ostensibly considered second-class to the portfolio managers, and this is reflected in the pay. So yes, they get paid more, and as a result they may be more a bit more motivated, but there's nothing egalitarian about programmer pay on Wall Street.

walshemj 12y ago
I think its more egalitarian than SV if only because if your working in that area your probably take a more realistic view of your value. And what about all that unpaid OT that SV companies expect?
michaelochurch 12y ago
you're expected to put in more hours There are some trading houses with really terrible cultures, but there are plenty where people work 9-to-5. Possibly 9-to-7, if a new strategy is being deployed that week. The 12-hour-per-day shops exist, but they're not the norm and they don't get the best people. At least, they don't get good people on the entry level. Top traders will work at them, for a price, but trading companies promote from within a lot more than tech, so that actually hurts them. within a much more rigid environment with less transparency. That's regulatory. It's true that it'd be hard for a trading firm to pull off a Valve-like structure, but most tech companies have the same barriers and permissions systems (but for arbitrary and stupid reasons). If you work for a closed-allocation tech company, there's no good reason not to trade up to a financial job with 50-100+ percent more pay and no fundamental change in work quality. Financial firms also value loyalty more and promote from within. Tech companies almost never promote from within, because they have that emasculated social-climbing mentality of always feeling the need for "better" people. Traders, culturally, have more of humility. "We're regular guys making money doing something hard." (There are some prima donna star traders who are exceptions, but they tend to fall hard and when they do, they're viciously attacked-- as they should be.) Also, throughout finance firms (even among the more tech-saavy ones), the programmers are ostensibly considered second-class to the portfolio managers, and this is reflected in the pay. If you're savvy at all, you'll establish yourself as a quant-who-codes, not a pure programmer. I don't think the Valley is different, in this regard. Non-managing programmers are, if anything, third-class citizens compared to venture capitalists, executives, and the people who are well-connected enough to be made founders. Trust me. Outside of the few open-allocation tech companies (e.g. Valve, Github) the financial world's deal is across-the-board superior. It's harder to get into, though.